Supreme Court rejects several gun rights cases for next term

Frees them up to spend more time... what? Writing strongly worded letters to various .gov entities saying "don't play games with the courts, or we'll tell you not to play games again!"
 
No doubt. They already started riots. More gun owners/relaxed gun laws would mean that the next riot may miserably fail. No use nor for "liberals" as their useful idiots would have "talk points", nor for "conservatives" as their useful idiots would not be scared enough to vote "because otherwise, it would be worse".

For a long time, the whole situation moved from "fooled me once - shame on you", to "fooled me twice - shame on me". People are happy to be fooled.
 
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote a dissent in the court’s denial of a New Jersey resident’s appeal seeking the right to carry a gun in public for self-defense. Rather than take on the constitutional issue, Thomas wrote, “the Court simply looks the other way.”
 
georgel said:
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote a dissent in the court’s denial of a New Jersey resident’s appeal seeking the right to carry a gun in public for self-defense. Rather than take on the constitutional issue, Thomas wrote, “the Court simply looks the other way.”
Click to expand...
This one is very disappointing. The court continues to refuse to take up the issue of states denying 2A rights.
 
Told everybody...Legal positivism has destroyed the court system in this country. We can no longer count on the courts to do their actual job. We have gotten all from them we will ever get. It is clear now that the squishy members of the court are easily swayed by public opinion.
 
Like the authorities backing off in the face of looters, power hungry progressives are going to go FR on gun regulations up here now that the Supreme Court has emasculated itself. Feeling very bad for those I leave behind when I move out of this liberal cesspool in August but after decades of swimming upstream it's time to go someplace where I can be at peace. With suppressors and standard capacity mags.
 
Last edited:
JT said:
No surprise here. The SC needs "defunding". It has broken its banks and flooded the land. Jefferson wept.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, I am reading a book by a former military analyst on the subject of what conflict will look like, what will spark it off, and what signs to look for. One of the questions raised by the book is what can people be doing now and one of the things the author suggested is getting SCOTUS de-funded and preferably shut down. The book was written in the mid 90s.
 
Hey everyone! The 2020 election is just too important to vote your conscience, or for actual candidates who would stand by the Constitution.

Candidates like that just can't win!

And if that doesn't convince you - the Supreme Court!!! Why without a "conservative " majority, they'll ignore the Second Amendment and treat it like an inferior Right!
 
The media always reports about 'gun violence' and 'gun rights'. This is all about Second Amendment Rights, the gun has no rights and is not violent.
The SCOTUS will not hear it today but perhaps when two more Justices retire we can have Justices that interpret RTKBA as the Founders did.
 
The Supreme Court of the United States delivered a blow to gun rights activists on Monday when they turned down the possibility of hearing roughly a dozen Second Amendment-related cases.

Thomas also made the argument that the Heller decision – which states a person has a right to carry a firearm outside of the home for self-protection – provided a framework for lower courts to decide cases.

The justice made it clear he believes these cases are being put off for political reasons, particularly for those on the Court who oppose the right to keep and bear arms.

"Whatever one may think about the proper approach to analyzing Second Amendment challenges, it is clearly time for us to resolve the issue," Thomas stated.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethb...ling-to-protect-the-second-amendment-n2570700


Hall on the Supreme Court
 
As of today I shall no longer participate in national elections. Fedgov has long shown itself to be the enemy of true Americans.

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-end-of-supreme-court.html?m=1

To my fellow Christian's, I am not a prophet and don't pretend to be, however the immediate answer to prayer (after learning of this latest betrayal) was startling: "Your people must be punished for their crimes. Get out of the cities or you will share it."
 
richardlc said:
As of today I shall no longer participate in national elections. Fedgov has long shown itself to be the enemy of true Americans.

https://voxday.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-end-of-supreme-court.html?m=1

To my fellow Christian's, I am not a prophet and don't pretend to be, however the immediate answer to prayer (after learning of this latest betrayal) was startling: "Your people must be punished for their crimes. Get out of the cities or you will share it."
Click to expand...

I would argue to continue to vote in federal elections, in State elections, and in local elections.

But vote your conscience. Even if it means writing in a candidate. And here's why.....

The Declaration of Independence is more a bill of indictment than it is a commentary on the natural, unalienable Rights of Mankind. The section that generation cared MOST about is the section most current Americans either don't know about or care LEAST about.....

The grievances section lists the justifications for the separation - and the subsequent war - and explains the extent to which Americans had gone to solve each problem legally and morally, how each attempt failed, and why when peaceful change was impossible, more dynamic change was fully justified.

Liberty itself relies on 4 boxes - the ballot box, the jury box, the soap box, and the cartridge box.

We must continue to exercise the first 3 boxes until we are forced into the fourth....it provides the moral argument, the reasoned argument of the necessity to be in that box.
 
To busy passing more rights for the LGBTQXYZ groups over running the country! Jus sayin...
 
richardlc said:
As of today I shall no longer participate in national elections.
Click to expand...
Not voting simply increases the influence of people like AOC and Nancy Pelosi.
 
Last edited:
Hammer21b said:
To busy passing more rights for the LGBTQXYZ groups over running the country! Jus sayin...
Click to expand...

SC Justices appointed themselves now as legislators.
Civil rights act of 1964 did not include sexual orientation and gender identity in the definition of sex. Who in 1964 would’ve thought discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity? Why not let congress expand the civil rights act to include the weirdos, not up to the Supreme Court to even take that case.
 
Jeppo said:
Not voting simply increases the influence of people like AOC and Nancy Pelosi.
Click to expand...
Where has voting got us? 40 million unborn babies murdered. Gay marriage. Obamacare is a tax. 2 years of Trump where we held both House and Senate yet Republicans did nothing but obstruct him.

At every step the party has abandoned us, choosing to genuflect to dollars and pandering because the next election is crucial.

Yet we, God fearing, America loving voters buy their schtick every time. We are fools and sheep masquerading as sheepdogs.
 
richardlc said:
Where has voting got us? 40 million unborn babies murdered. Gay marriage. Obamacare is a tax. 2 years of Trump where we held both House and Senate yet Republicans did nothing but obstruct him.

At every step the party has abandoned us, choosing to genuflect to dollars and pandering because the next election is crucial.

Yet we, God fearing, America loving voters buy their schtick every time. We are fools and sheep masquerading as sheepdogs.
Click to expand...
I can’t argue with your view. However, try to envision a 2021 with a Democrat President and majority of both Houses. :eek:
 
Jeppo said:
However, try to envision a 2021 with a Democrat President and majority of both Houses.
Click to expand...
2021, 2025, or some other year. It is going to happen. Unless of course the empire breaks apart first, which might not be such a bad thing.
 
Starkherz199 said:
Told everybody...Legal positivism has destroyed the court system in this country. We can no longer count on the courts to do their actual job. We have gotten all from them we will ever get. It is clear now that the squishy members of the court are easily swayed by public opinion.
Click to expand...

Well it's pretty likely at least one got whacked for not playing ball, so....
 
Goes back when I asked if the bill of rights is for everyone then why states tell it’s “citizens “ what and when they do anything. Why have the rights if you can’t have them? Are we truly free? Don’t pay taxes on your house, then you’ll see who owns it...don’t buy a tag for your car....just vote for the right guy...if the top court will not stand up for our rights then what?

we are truly at a threshold or crossroads, so what’s next.....historically Revolution?.?.?.?.
 
Last edited:
People who advocate for not voting or writing in candidates are dead to me, and may as well be to everyone, because they have literally removed themselves from the political gene pool and are purposely useless.

Like almost everything in life politics isn't black and white. You rarely get what you really want and have to compromise to some extent, for some people this is hard for them to understand in the political realm for some reason.

I for one and damn glad we voted Trump in office and shudder to think what would be left of the country by now if we hadn't. If you think you can hasten the Boogaloo or whatever you want to call it by letting the enemy destroy everything we hold dear you are delusional. Letting them win will simply turn us into a full on European type socialist state or worse and unless you know something I don't there isn't enough organization on our side to kick off any effective physical resistance.
 
Last edited:
Flashpoint said:
People who advocate for not voting or writing in candidates are dead to me, and may as well be to everyone, because they have literally removed themselves from the political gene pool and are purposely useless.

Like almost everything in life politics isn't black and white. You rarely get what you really want and have to compromise to some extent, for some people this is hard for them to understand in the political realm for some reason.

I for one and damn glad we voted Trump in office and shudder to think what would be left of the country by now if we hadn't. If you think you can hasten the Boogaloo or whatever you want to call it by letting the enemy destroy everything we hold dear you are delusional. Letting them win will simply turn us into a full on European type socialist state or worse and unless you know something I don't there isn't enough organization on our side to kick off any effective physical resistance.
Click to expand...
Not about letting them win or us losing. It's about how many elections are spun as saving the courts only to have the party approved judges betray their oathes and the nation. We elected them to do certain things, they then have a big circle jerk and do the opposite.
The Constitution died in 1860 and our leaders have been pissing on it's grave ever since.
By not voting I am exercising the last peaceful option of a patriotic citizen: withdrawing my consent.
 
Yesterday's decision was ENDA by judicial fiat. Religious liberty is now over. Within 5-10 years after pedophilia is normalized...and if you get on Twitter you'll find out that they are working hard to add the P to LGBTQ...churches will not be able to turn down pedophiles seeking employment, because they're pedophiles. You think thays extreme...wait 5 more years.
This whole year has showed everyone just how spineless Republicans are, and how impotent Trump is. He talks...but rarely fights. Not only is there no reason to vote for these clowns, I would support anyone's decision to quit paying taxes because they no longer want to fund their own destruction.
 
Last edited:
SPM said:
Liberty itself relies on 4 boxes - the ballot box, the jury box, the soap box, and the cartridge box.

We must continue to exercise the first 3 boxes until...
Click to expand...
...until they use the first three boxes to take the fourth. So the moral problem will be resolved - no ammo, no chance and no need to do think of morality. However, it will be even easier. Media will simply call resistance to the government "racist" and 9 of 10 will spend most of time explaining that their are not racist and putting themselves away.

I am afraid that antifa just clearly demonstrated that they are the future. They act while the rest of us chew the rag. :-(

So, I agree. Not voting is the best strategy. The worse will be the next president, the better. May be the silent majority will wake up. If not... well, "the horrible end is better than the endless horror" (c)
 
Last edited:
nowhere-man said:
...until they use the first three boxes to take the fourth. So the moral problem will be resolved - no ammo, no chance and no need to do think of morality. However, it will be even easier. Media will simply call resistance to the government "racist" and 9 of 10 will spend most of time explaining that their are not racist and putting themselves away.

I am afraid that antifa just clearly demonstrated that they are the future. They act while the rest of us chew the rag. :-(

So, I agree. Not voting is the best strategy. The worse will be the next president, the better. May be the silent majority will wake up. If not... well, "the horrible end is better than the endless horror" (c)
Click to expand...

10% under arms is easily enough to crush AntiFa and topple the government, even with the weight of its technologically superior firepower.

"Easily squashed" seems, on it's face, to be a totally reasonable argument, though for the sake of clarity, let's engage in a serious thought experiment on the subject, considering just a few of the factors at play in the possibility of the success of a civil revolt.

We'll start by looking at the cases of Chris Dorner(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner), our experience fighting al Qaida/ISIS, the shootings in Paris, San Bernardino, and the Dallas PD shooting, then move on to the geographical and logistical implications of subduing the American continent.

Chris Dorner was one man. Former cop, former military, yes....but he was just one man. His personal revolt, in which he was openly hunting authorities, turned law enforcement on its head. Local, State, and federal authorities were beside themselves in panic as evidenced by shooting people/shooting at people who did not resemble the suspect or his vehicle on multiple occasions. Not very disciplined, and all their training did them almost no good when confronted with a situation in which they could exert no control, and were being hunted in settings where they were accustomed to being in charge.

The attackers in Paris, armed with a couple rifles and a few suicide vests hit multiple locations, and put an entire city in panic and escaped for days. Yes, the police eventually won out....but that was after over one hundred deaths and hundreds more injuries.

In San Bernardino, 2 jihadis armed with semi-automatic rifles, two pistols and fake pipe bombs shutdown an entire city and eluded the police for hours. How many more could have been killed had the attackers been persistent in their plans, or had their pipe bombs actually functioned? The police response, while admirable, still took hours to apprehend 2 suspects.

In Dallas, a single armed suspect armed with a semi-automatic surplus rifle engaged in a moving gunfight with the numerically superior and better, more heavily armed Dallas Police, killing 5 and wounding 7 more by himself.

These few examples highlight how the authorities, accustomed to obedience and compliance, respond to deliberate, extremely violent action by just a a single individual or a few determined individuals.

Now.....the average of estimates suggests there are approxiamately 120-140 million gun owners( http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ricans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/) in this country.

All the "3%" notions aside (much less 10%), let's assume that something happens that leads to civil war, 99% of those holding private arms in these United States surrender immediately, and only 1% of those gun owners decide to fight.

That's around 1.2 to 1.4 million armed Citizens, motivated not by hatred or bloodlust, but the notion that they are fighting to preserve their Rights and Liberties from a government dedicated to taking those Rights and Liberties by killing them.

It would be the 4th largest army in the world(http://www.globalfirepower.com/active-military-manpower.asp), assuming no current military personnel fought for the People and remained in the service of the government.

Given the majority of active duty military personnel hold logistical and support roles(http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/mcgrath_op23.pdf) --{PDF WARNING} rather than direct warfighting roles, the battlefield strength equation would be even more skewed.

Even if you count the reserve component(http://www.globalfirepower.com/active-reserve-military-manpower.asp) of American military strength, (many of whom would likely be counted among the "rebel force" since they are literally Citizen Soldiers), they are hardly a battle-hardened army looking to kill their family, neighbors and friends.

You would have to resort to conscription and the draft - how many people do you know that would be willing to fight and die involuntarily for such a fool's errand as civil disarmament?

Further context is provided by looking at our experience in Iraq, where roughly 290,000 boots on the ground(http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf) took part in-country, though again, the majority were support personnel.

The insurgency those forces faced have been estimated at no more than 4,000 to 7,000(http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-08-insurgency-count_x.htm) fighters at any one time in country. We've fought there for almost two decades....and though the majority of the fighting in Iraq has now ceased, to say we "won" and the insurgency "lost" is looking at the situation there through the rosiest-colored glasses.

Even if you argue we won every military engagement quite handily, that's no different than our experience in Vietnam.

General Frederick Weyland recalled speaking to his Vietnamese counterpart in Hanoi a week before the fall of Saigon, insisting "You know, you never beat us on the battlefield."

The Vietnamese commander pondered that remark a moment and then replied, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."

The problem, which is inherent in all conventional armies fighting an insurgent war, is the notion that the insurgency can be defeated like a conventional opponent. That battlefield victories alone determine the victor, and that a sufficient throttling will convince insurgents to lay down their arms and go home in peace. Historically, both sides have this foolhardy notion that one major victory will bring a swift end to their opponent....to the victor goes the spoils, and all that. Yet civil wars are never quick, never clean, and leave no portion of a population unscathed.

The strategic aims of a successful insurgency are not the same as the strategic aims of a conventional war between conventional adversaries.

The insurgency DOESN'T HAVE TO WIN THE WAR. The established order has to win the war.

The insurgency simply has to not lose it.

These are dramatically different, and the failure to understand this dynamic is what causes the ability to win nearly every battle of a campaign and still lose the war.

This is something Washington came to understand after the disastrous New York Campaign, and something the British commanders failed to realize until it was too late.

What was the strategic center, the location that must be captured or annihilated by the Crown to end the war?

Was it Boston? Well they do that. Was it New York? They do that. Philadelphia? They do that. Savannah? They do that. Charleston? They do that. In the end it wasn't a place.

The strategic center of the American Revolution was the Continental Army itself, as well as the tens of thousands of militiamen hassling British patrols, denying them forage, and cutting supply lines. So long as the Army survived, the hopes of the fledgling nation survived.

You see this realization on Washington's part as his fighting style changes from the traditionally European form of honor-bound confrontation to a more Fabian strategy.....hitting where the British are weak and fading away, always preventing the annihilation of the Army and America along with it.

Had Lee understood the same strategic implications nearly a century later, North America could very well be a wholly different place in our own times.
 
Last edited:
Ignoring all that, I would argue the landmass itself presents perhaps the greatest challenge, as the shear amount of area that must be covered is staggering by comparison - 3.806 million square miles in the United States vs 168,754 square miles in Iraq or 251,825 square miles in Afghanistan.

There simply aren't enough resources to control if a large portion of the countryside was, for lack of a better phrase, up in arms.

This doesn't take into account the inevitability of a split in military forces (the American Civil War is quite telling in this regard, as many former colleagues who would have fought together in 1860 were fighting against each other in 1861. Commissions were resigned, crews of ships left upon return to port - a homogenous military would also crumble away with the disintegration of civil order) and equipment. I would grant you controlling major cities would be strategically possible for a time, but the majority of the countryside would be significantly more difficult to corral and subdue, much less subjugate. Furthermore, urban hubs would become ungovernable once flyover country cut off food and electricity- water, sewage, air conditioning, the internet - all utilities in the cities would cease. They, too, would collapse as they tear themselves apart.

There simply aren't enough tanks, aircraft, drones, smart bombs and cruise missile to make a significant difference outside major population centers.

An American insurgency here in the US around a million strong would be, quite assuredly, unstoppable....especially if it happened all at once and not sporadically and piecemeal.

Logistically speaking, it would be impossible for the federal government to "win." The social order, the country itself, simply wouldn't survive.
 
SPM said:
...
Click to expand...
I agree that your points sound reasonable, and it may go that way. But I wouldn't bet that it will.

First, landmass and numbers may not help. Take a look at the Russian Civil war of 1918-1921. Commies were a minority. The land was even larger. It was a better landscape for resistance - forests, plenty of water supply, natural fortifications. Any country didn't support Commies, everybody supported their opponents.

Moreover, their opponents were armed not by neutered "civilian" versions of light arms but had plenty of military-grade weapons from just-finished World War 1. Yet it takes just three years to establish commie rule of most of the Russian Empire. Because commies were proactive and united, and their
opponents were passive and divided.

Second, I don't believe that we would speak of 3%. Take a look at the so-called 3%-ers. They would better be called 0.003%. We speak of groups of a handful of people for regions of a few millions of population. The rest don't care.

The problem is that slow liberal changes normalize the perception of abnormalities. Who would let the destruction of monuments just ten years ago? Could you imagine the police on the knees ten years ago? Slow changes are the reason. A small loss looks tolerable, but day-after-day, a critical mass is gathered. And the cause for the gradual change is not that lefties are so smart. It is because their opponents resist just a little, but not enough to stop. It is somehow similar to underuse of antibiotic, that is even worse than not using it at all because it weakens the immune system and helps bacteria to get stronger.

"To continue vote" mean to weaken us and to make them stronger. We may consider stopping underuse antibiotics and let the immune system work while it still can fight the decease.

And yeah, my ancestors participated of the Russian Civil war. And they were against Commie. And their were at "delay the conflict until the very last moment" position. Now see what happened with them. They owned a territory comparable with current triad area and were one of the main suppliers of horses for military. By 1937 the family almost disappeared.
 
Last edited:
Starkherz199 said:
Yesterday's decision was ENDA by judicial fiat. Religious liberty is now over. Within 5-10 years after pedophilia is normalized...and if you get on Twitter you'll find out that they are working hard to add the P to LGBTQ...churches will not be able to turn down pedophiles seeking employment, because they're pedophiles. You think thays extreme...wait 5 more years.
This whole year has showed everyone just how spineless Republicans are, and how impotent Trump is. He talks...but rarely fights. Not only is there no reason to vote for these clowns, I would support anyone's decision to quit paying taxes because they no longer want to fund their own destruction.
Click to expand...
There sure have been a lot of pedophiles working in the Churches for the last couple of centuries. I guess they haven't been able to turn them down for employment for quite a while? One Church just moved them around and knowingly let them continue their pedophilia.
 
SPM said:
I would argue to continue to vote in federal elections, in State elections, and in local elections.
.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and that should have the correct balance of power between states and the politb^H^H^H Federal Government. In my .sig is the reason we have House and Senate acting rabidly on the issues de jour, rather than representing people (House) and the States (Senate) (direct election of Senators instead of by the state government).

My one chuckle out Trump's presidency is suddenly liberal states (Cali) are asking to get out of Federal decisions.
 
Starkherz199 said:
Within 5-10 years after pedophilia is normalized...
Click to expand...

That will never be “normal” and anyone involved in it deserves to get hunted down and smoked.

Folks engaged in pedophilia should be lined up against a wall and have their head caved in with a baseball bat...and my wish is that they’d remain conscious long enough to see their own brain splatter the wall.

I’m a compassionate guy, but everybody has a “no mercy” line. For people who’d hurt little kids like that, I have nothing but pure, white-hot rage and hatred...and I don’t enjoy feeling that way at all.
 
Last edited:
wsfiredude said:
...For people who’d hurt little kids like that, I have nothing but pure, white-hot rage and hatred...and I don’t enjoy feeling that way at all.
Click to expand...
A long time ago I worked at a computer shop, and a guy brought his broken computer. I fixed it like a champ, but saw some disturbing things. I called the cops to have them take the computer but they said they couldn't do anything after reviewing his pictures. I noticed his address looked familiar and it turned out his driveway was only about 100yds from an elementary school...
I found myself in his driveway, feeling that white-hot rage and hatred you mentioned. I still have some regrets about going home that night.
 
Seems I read an article some place about how a few snipers around large cities would halt deliveries of food, medicines etc. They also mentioned shooting holes in the oil cooled transformers in sub stations blacking out large portions of cities. The cities destroy themselves. It was a fascinating read.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom